audit_audit_log

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description must disclose behaviors. It only states that it records an event and returns a structured object, but omits critical details such as whether the operation is idempotent, requires authentication, or has side effects on other audit tools.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely brief—only one sentence plus the return shape. Every word adds value, though the brevity sacrifices completeness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With six parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. The agent lacks information to correctly construct the input, especially for optional parameters like 'metadata' and 'severity'.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. For example, it does not clarify acceptable values for 'event_type', the expected format for 'actor' and 'resource', or how 'metadata' or 'severity' affect the audit entry.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Record a structured audit event') and the return format, distinguishing it from sibling tools like audit_audit_get and audit_audit_search, which are read/query operations. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. For example, it does not mention when to use audit_audit_statistics or audit_audit_export instead.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.